Skip to main content
. 2023 Nov 18;4(1):100292. doi: 10.1016/j.xagr.2023.100292

Table 2.

Comparison of clinical outcomes for IOL before and after the implementation of an IOL care pathway

Outcome metric Prepathway implementation: Jan. 2018 to May 2018 (n=392) Postpathway implementation: Aug. 2018 to Sept. 2019 (n=1079) OR (95% CI) P value Completed match ATTa Completed match P valuea
Time from admission to delivery (h) 23.4±12.0 22.2±11.2 .08 −1.200 .026
Chorioamnionitis 49 (12.5) 64 (6.0) 0.44 (0.29–0.67) <.001 −0.046 .003
Endometritis 27 (6.9) 28 (2.6) 0.36 (0.20–0.65) <.001 −0.051 .001
PPH 31 (7.9) 66 (6.1) 0.76 (0.48–1.22) .23 −0.098 .413
NICU admissions 71 (18.1) 177 (14.0) 0.74 (0.54–1.02) .058 −0.017 .419
CDsb 77 (19.6) 217 (20.1) 1.03 (0.76–1.40) .88 −0.014 .51
Unanticipated outcomes associated with IOL (chorioamnionitis, endometritis, NICU admissions, CD, and PPH) 223 (56.9) 395 (36.6) 0.44 (0.34–0.56) <.001 −0.215 <.001

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (percentage), unless otherwise indicated. Some columns may not add to 100% because of missing data.

ATT, average treatment effect on the treated; CD, cesarean delivery; CI, confidence interval; IOL, induction of labor; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit; OR, odds ratio; PPH, postpartum hemorrhage; SD, standard deviation.

a

Generated from propensity score matching with replacement, including only patients with complete variables (n=1491);

b

Delivery method not available for 9 predeliveries and 4 postdeliveries.

Lutgendorf. Induction of labor care pathway. Am J Obstet Gynecol Glob Rep 2023.